Climategate Continues: “Textbook cases of gross lapses in professional ethics”

Climategate 2.0 and Scientific Integrity

from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

Climategate, both 1 and 2, are textbook cases of gross lapses in professional ethics and scientific malfeasance.  To understand why, one must first understand what science is and how it is supposed to operate, says H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

• Science is the noble pursuit of knowledge through observation, testing and experimentation.
• Scientists attempt to explain, describe and/or predict the implications of phenomena through the use of the scientific method, which consists of gaining knowledge or explanatory power through a process.
• Progress is made in science by proposing a hypothesis and developing a theory to explain or understand certain phenomena, and then testing the hypothesis against reality.
• A particular hypothesis is considered superior to others when, through testing, it is shown to have more explanatory power than competing theories or hypotheses.
• Every theory or hypothesis must be disconfirmable in principle, which means that, if the theory predicts that “A” will occur under certain conditions, but instead, “B” and sometimes “C” result, then the theory has problems.
• The more a hypothesis’ predictions prove inconsistent with or are diametrically opposed to the results that occur during testing, the less likely the hypothesis is to be correct.

Which brings us to Climategate.

• Climategate parts one and two are a series of leaked e-mails from arguably the most prominent researchers promoting the idea that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.
• The first group of e-mails released in 2009 showed scientists, among other things, attempting to suppress or alter inconvenient data, destroying raw data so that others would be unable to analyze it and trying to suppress dissent by undermining the peer review process.
• Climategate 2 is a second release of e-mails with little new information, but more hiding of data.

To be clear, these e-mails do not disprove that humans are causing potentially catastrophic global warming, but what clearly emerges is that the scientists claiming that “the science is settled” and that there is “consensus” among scientists, can’t be trusted, nor can their research be pointed to as solid proof of anthropogenic global warming, says Burnett.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett, “What’s Going on Behind the Curtain? Climategate 2.0 and Scientific Integrity,” National Association of Scholars, December 14, 2011.

For text:

http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=2319

Eric Holder Securing Voter Fraud for 2012 to Re-elect Obama

ERIC HOLDER ANNOUNCES OPPOSITION TO ELECTION INTEGRITY LAWS

by  J. Christian Adams    at   Pajamas Media:

“On Tuesday night, I spoke in Austin, Texas, at a rally organized by True the Vote.  It took place on the grounds of the LBJ Library on the campus of the University of Texas.  The rally was in response to Eric Holder’s announcement at the same place two hours later of a concerted Justice Department effort to oppose virtually every electoral integrity measure promoted by Constitutional conservatives and Republicans.

Holder’s announcement will have profound partisan results in the 2012 election because of his professed unwillingness to enforce laws to prevent voter fraud.  Indeed, tonight he made clear his opposition to these laws, such as voter ID and even the requirement to register to vote in advance of an election.

Holder announced broad opposition to voter identification requirements and a ramped up effort to enforce voting registration laws in welfare agencies.  He didn’t make any announcements about enforcing Section 8 of Motor Voter to ensure dead people don’t populate the roles.  He also said that voter fraud “isn’t a huge problem,” perhaps marking the first time the nation’s chief law enforcement downplayed criminal behavior.  Of course that is in vogue in this administration, starting with the New Black Panther dismissal and now with Fast and Furious.

In opposition to Holder, I spoke, as did a group of inspiring patriots starting with Catherine Englebrecht of True the Vote.  Anita Moncrief, Reverend C. L. Bryan, George Rodriguez (head of the San Antonio Tea Party) and Adryana Boyne, national director of VOCES Action followed.  Boyne’s speech defending Texas voter ID may be the first time I heard the policy defended in Spanish.  Moncrief, though, had the line of the night — that “Al Sharpton has a platinum race card.”

Holder laid down markers which will excite his base and disturb law abiding citizens.  He supported restrictions on political speech which will criminalize campaign falsehoods.  He vowed hyper-scrutiny of voter integrity laws such as voter ID and vowed to run states like Texas through a nasty gauntlet on redistricting.  If this doesn’t send a signal to Texas and South Carolina to pull their voter ID laws out of Justice and go to court, nothing else will.  Also in attendance was Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, a starring character in my book Injustice.

Holder brought along his puppy, Charlie Savage of the New York Times, from whom we can expect glowing sycophantic coverage of Holder’s announcement at any minute at the New York Times website.  Savage is the same reporter who covered purported politicization at the Bush Justice Department.  For this he won a Pulitzer Prize.

PJ Media’s Every Single One series reported on the same story Savage did, except this time on the 113 attorney hires by the Obama Civil Rights Division.  Savage only covered a handful of Bush hires — he had to, otherwise his story wouldn’t work because the Bush DOJ hired scores of liberal activist lawyers.  But the Obama Justice Department gives no quarter to the enemy in hiring, and hired 113 leftists out of 113 openings.  I described in my book Injustice how PJ Media had to sue Eric Holder to extract this information:

During the Bush era, DOJ leaders quickly fulfilled FOIA requests. For instance, in 2006 Charlie Savage, then at the Boston Globe, requested all the resumes of the recently hired attorneys in the Bush Civil Rights Division. The DOJ leadership produced the materials within days, well ahead of the legal deadline—they acted so fast, in fact, that some colleagues and I complained they were rushing. Suspecting we were being set up for a leftwing smear campaign, we urged DOJ officials to protect our privacy while fully complying with the requests. But our concerns were ignored and the information was rushed out anyway, resulting in a slew of slanderous media stories, some attacking us in extremely personal ways, followed by curious questions from our family members about why we were in the news. There was a particularly merciless leftist blogosphere attack on a pair of attorneys who happened to be two of the hardest working and most dedicated lawyers in the entire Voting Section.

After PJ Media obtained the Obama hiring information, Savage, ever the cuddly puppy, wrote a puff piece about the Obama hiring practices.  Gone was his outrage over politicized hiring that he exhibited at the Boston Globe for the Bush DOJ.  That’s what PJ Media is for – reporting on stories the dying dead trees media won’t. Given the scope of the Every Single One series, perhaps PJ Media deserves a Pulitzer too.  If Charlie got one, PJ Media certainly should.  Stay tuned.”

Discourse at The Jewish Week…..Gay Weddings, Sex, Immodesty….Welcome to Liberal America

Misguided Rabbinical Priorities

by Mordechai Rackover   at   The Jewish Week:

“Nowadays Orthodoxy is all about sex. Immodesty, promiscuity, homosexuality: the public discourse of the Orthodox Jewish world seems disproportionately to take place in the bedroom, the dressing room, and the closet.

Gender is also a related hot topic. What are women? What can and can’t they do? What can they, but shouldn’t they? And what about men? Can men marry each other? Live together? Adopt children? Out of the closet? In the closet? On the bima? In the shul?

This discourse isn’t much of a conversation. Discourse comes from an Old French word and implies ‘back and forth’ – or, in the language of Talmud study with which all Orthodox rabbis are familiar, ‘shakla ve-tarya,’ give and take.  But the public discourse of the Orthodox has become — proudly, defiantly, and almost by definition — all give and no take: an unending series of pronouncements and responses, murmurings, blog-posts, unending comment threads and online flame-wars. These “conversations” are merely the strident repetition of entrenched positions. More and more I understand the expression, “it’s like talking to a wall.” 

While these non-conversations about sex and gender proliferate, the incidence of child rape, verbal and physical abuse of women, poverty, weakening schools and riven families, to name only a few crises, increases. Fewer children keep Shabbat and more adults work like dogs to send their children to day schools, sacrificing time they might otherwise actually spend with them.

Sex has nothing to do with most of the problems I’ve listed, and the energies that are put into hand-wringing and petition-signing over sexual ethics could be far better placed.

The case in point: recently Rabbi Steve Greenberg, who was ordained by Yeshiva University, subsequently came out as gay, and has argued that there is no contradiction between being gay and Orthodox, performed a wedding in which he sanctified the union of two men. The media reported that an Orthodox rabbi performed a gay marriage and all kinds of rabbis began talking to their favorite walls. Then a group of over one hundred rabbis got together to declare that this was not an orthodox wedding and that no such wedding was possible. Big News! The Torah and Orthodox understanding of Halakha prohibit gay marriage. Who knew?

An Orthodox rabbi myself, I happen to agree that this was not an Orthodox wedding. But I think these rabbis’ response is a much bigger problem than two Orthodox gay men seeking a way to dignify their relationship through marriage.

Who do these rabbis think is listening? What compelled them to lash out? Do they anticipate an impending rash of orthodox gay marriages? Did their synagogue Executive Directors ask for guidance with all the calls to book gay weddings? Do they think that Jews to the left of Orthodoxy need to be reminded that the orthodox establishment considers them wrong?

These rabbis bang on their lecterns and chests and fight for attention to keep themselves in the center of attention: to declare that they are in charge and that they alone define Judaism. And in so doing, in drawing lines where no one is looking for them, they routinely miss the places that everyone is looking for wisdom and moral guidance in the problems they face in their actual lives.

We are bereft of relevant leadership and opinions that matter. In recent years we’ve watched as an increasing number of aspects of orthodox Jewish life have become narrower. Kashrut is beset with polarizing stringencies. Increasing swathes of public life (synagogues, buses, sidewalks, funerals) are becoming less hospitable to women. Conversion is a minefield and women remain bound in unwanted marriages by rabbis who refuse to respond.

And one hundred rabbis saw fit to speak out…on a marriage that no one that they are speaking to was likely even to have known about.

I believe Orthodoxy no longer exists as a coherent ideology. There are gangs of rabbis in different clubs. Sometimes they work together, sometimes against each other, depending on their interest of the moment. In the meantime they have so eroded their moral and legal footing that even the once faithful are falling away. So many people have gone down this path that even the fundamental practices of our faith have become twisted and unrecognizable. And here we are at another moment of niggling erosion where rabbis who could spend valuable time and energy have misplaced their power and in so doing lost a little more of what little relevance they may have left.”

Democrats Confident they can Win in 2012……and It won’t be Pretty!

Obama’s Victory Plan

    The president’s campaign advisers reveal the

outlines of their re-election strategy. It’s not pretty.

by  John Dickerson    at Slate

“President Obama’s top campaign advisers held a briefing for national reporters today in Washington, D.C., an early attempt to persuade the media that victory is possible, or even likely. The inevitable PowerPoint presentation gave the impression of a gathering army and plenty of options. Slides showed that there had been 1 million conversations with voters, 90,000 meetings, and that 45 percent of donors were new ones who had not given in 2008. A screen full of maps showed the five different ways Obama could win the election*, either through a “Western path” where he won states such as Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, or a “Florida path.”

The collective message was that the Obama team has built something big enough to withstand the deluge of bad data and historical trends that are working against the president: the high unemployment rate, an average approval rating that is seven points below the key benchmark of 50 percent, and a vast majority of voters who think the country is going in the wrong direction.

A USA Today/Gallup analysis of swing states that came out this morning showed Republicans are more enthusiastic than Democrats. The president’s swing-state poll numbers are worse than they are among the general public. Both Romney and Gingrich lead Obama in those states.

President Obama’s strategists, of course, had their own numbers showing that Obama was doing better in those states. They quibbled with the USA Today/Gallup findings, prompting one reporter to joke that Susan Page of USA Today, who sat typing on her laptop, should get 30 seconds to respond.

The second task of the presentation was to convince us that the Republican nominating fight has become extremely ugly. There has been a lot of talk about which GOP candidate the White House would rather run against. In this briefing, Obama’s aides took shots at both Gingrich and Romney, though David Axelrod’s characterization of the former speaker was the most colorful. “Just remember the higher a monkey climbs on a pole,” Axelrod said, quoting an expression a Chicago Alderman taught him, “the more you can see his butt. So, you know, the speaker is very high on the pole right now and we’ll see how people like the view.”

Ultimately the Republican nominee doesn’t matter, said the president’s men, because the GOP nomination is an ever more extreme contest controlled by the far reaches of the Tea Party. “They’re mortgaging themselves for the general by tacking as far as they are,” said Axelrod, pointing to hard-line stances against illegal immigrants that will hurt with Hispanic voters and the competition to support a Paul Ryan budget plan that fundamentally changes the nature of Medicare.

Candidates have always appealed to their party bases in primaries and successfully courted more ideologically moderate voters in the general, but this time, the Obama team insists, the swing is irrevocable—no going back. They seem to believe that if they can de-legitimize the nominating contest, the winner will gain nothing from victory.

They say that the message that the president will carry to victory is the one he outlined last week in Kansas. In it Obama argued for a shared effort to restore national greatness based on the idea that everyone should have a fair shot at the American dream.

But this sounds familiar, doesn’t it? That’s because we’ve seen this play over and over again from the president. This year alone we were introduced to the new Obama in his September jobs speech, in his April rebuttal to Paul Ryan, and in his January State of the Union address. In December 2010, the president said America faced a “Sputnik moment.” Last week the president used Teddy Roosevelt as his historical touchstone, and offered the same high stakes, saying American faced “a make or break moment.”

The Obama team pointed out that this is not a new message. Axelrod mentioned Obama’s early working history helping those displaced after steel mills shut down, and speeches the president had given in 2004 and 2005, as well as during the 2008 campaign. But this also makes the current promises sound familiar. After each of these speeches, the claim was made that the president had finally taken the field to fight, that his standing would improve because he had thrown off the attempt to make bipartisan deals. “We were in a position of legislative compromise by necessity. That phase is behind us,” said Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer in September.

The briefing suggested a pretty rough campaign. When Axelrod was asked whether there were any vestiges of hope left over from the 2008 campaign, he said that the focus on fairness was in the same vein: “It is a hopeful vision of the future of broad prosperity.” But it’s hard to see how voters are going to see any hope at all. Polls show that people already have the lowest opinion of government they’ve ever had. They’ve heard these promises from President Obama before. Are they going to be more receptive to his message that he can change Washington and make it effective for them when he hasn’t been able to for four years? It’s all the other guys’ fault, the president’s team will argue.

Perhaps, but the other guys are not going to change even if he’s re-elected. Not so, says Axelrod. An Obama re-election will liberate Republicans by showing them the folly of standing with the Tea Party. Once Obama has set them free, they will join with him to tackle the real problems of America. That seems like a stretch, especially if the Obama team is effective in so diminishing the Republican opponent that Republicans can write off the loss as simply the result of a bad nominee, not a fatal flaw in their party’s message.”